Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36725

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2The list of delineated rules is contained in

Supplementary Material to NYSE Rule 476A. Only

Continued

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–17842 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Reclearance of

Expiring Information Collection; Form

RI 25–14

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for reclearance of

an information collection. RI 25–14,

Self-Certification of Full-Time School

Attendance, is used to survey survivor

annuitants who are between the ages of

18 and 22 to determine if they meet the

requirement of Section 8341(a) (C), and

Section 8441, title 5, U.S. Code, to

receive benefits as a student.

Approximately 14,000 SelfCertification and Full-Time School

Attendance forms are completed

annually; each requires approximately

12 minutes to complete, for a total

public burden of 2,800 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before August

6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations

Support Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,

NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC

20415, and Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk

Officer, Office of Information &

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, NW, Room

10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Dory Zamani, Budget & Administrative

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–17843 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

To Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Striker Industries, Inc.,

Common Stock, $.50 Par Value) File

No. 1–13118

June 30, 1998.

Striker Industries, Inc. (‘‘Company’’)

has filed an application with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 12d2–2(d)

promulgated thereunder, to withdraw

the above specified security (‘‘Security’’)

from listing and registration on the

Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BSE’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’).

The reasons cited in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

The Company is not at present in

compliance with the minimum

shareholders’ equity maintenance

requirement mandated by the Rules of

the Exchange for continued listing of the

Company’s Security on the Exchange.

The Company discussed the

shareholders’ equity maintenance

requirement with the Listing Manager at

the BSE and received an extension of

time within which to attempt to comply

with the requirement, but was unable to

do so within the time frame of the

extension. The Company subsequently

filed with the Exchange for voluntary

withdrawal and delisting, requesting a

no objection letter from the Exchange.

Consequently, so far as is known to the

Company, it has complied with the

Rules of the Exchange governing the

delisting of securities.

The Company notified the Exchange

on June 15, 1998, that it was requesting

the withdrawal and delisting of its

Security from the Exchange, and, in a

letter dated June 16, 1998, the Exchange

raised no objection to such withdrawal

and delisting.

The Company’s Security also trades

on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market.

Any interested person may, on or

before July 22, 1998, submit by letter to

the Security of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20549, facts

bearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the Exchange and what terms,

if any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors.

The Commission, based on the

information submitted to it, will issue

an order granting the application after

the date mentioned above, unless the

Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17928 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–40138; File No. SR–NYSE–

98–02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Approving Proposed Rule Change by

the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. to

Include Rules 392, 460.30, 80A(b),

79A.15 and 105 in its Minor

Disciplinary Fine System under

Exchange Rule 476A

June 26, 1998.

I. Introduction

On January 20, 1998, the New York

Stock Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘NYSE’’

or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) pursuant to

Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 a

proposed rule change amending its ‘‘List

of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines

Applicable Thereto Pursuant to Rule

476A’’ and its reporting plan for 476A

violations to include the items proposed

for addition to the list of rules subject

to Rule 476A. The proposed rule change

was published for comment in

Securities Exchange Act Release No.

39980 (May 8, 1998), 63 FR 27339 (May

18, 1998). No comments were received

on the proposal. For the reasons

discussed below, the Commission is

approving the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposal

On March 11, 1985, the Commission

approved a NYSE plan for the

abbreviated reporting of minor rule

violations. The NYSE Minor Rule

Violation Plan (‘‘MRVP’’), as embodied

in NYSE Rule 476A, provides that the

Exchange may designate violations of

certain rules as minor rule violations.

The Exchange may impose a fine, not to

exceed $5000, on any member or

member organization for a violation of

the delineated rules by issuing a citation

with a specific penalty.2 The Exchange
36726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

those fines that are not in excess of $2,500 are

subject to the periodic reporting requirements of

SEC Rule 19d–1(c).

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1).

8 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–4.

9See Securities Exchange Act Release 37619A

(September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (September 12,

1996)(‘‘Adopting Release’’).

10A specialist is not displaying customer limit

orders immediately if the specialist regularly

executes customer limit orders at, for example, the

27th second after receipt. As stated in the Adopting

Release, the requirement that a limit order be

displayed ‘‘immediately’’ means that the limit order

must be displayed as soon as practicable, but no

later than 30 seconds after receipt under normal

market conditions. This 30 seconds is an outer limit

under normal market conditions and is not to be

interpreted as a 30-second safe harbor.

11For example, the Commission expects that the

Exchange would not issue several cautionary letters

before instituting the fines under the Plan or

aggregate multiple violations of the rules before

instituting abbreviated disciplinary procedures

under the Plan or, if necessary, full disciplinary

procedures.

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

13 17 CFR 240.19d–1(c)(2).

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(2).

1Under the Social Security Independence and

Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No.

103–296, effective March 31, 1995, SSA became an

also retains the option of bringing

violations of rules subject to NYSE Rule

476A to full disciplinary proceedings.

The Exchange proposed that the failure

to comply with the provisions of (1)

Rule 392 and Rule 460.30 which require

notification to the Exchange by member

organizations when they are

participating in or engaging in certain

activities related to an offering of

securities listed on the Exchange; (2)

Rule 80A(b) which prohibits entry of

stop orders for the remainder of any

trading day on which ‘‘sidecar’’

procedures have been invoked; (3) Rule

79A.15 which requires specialists to

publish bids and offers upon receipt of

limit orders; and (4) Rule 105 and its

Guidelines regarding specialists’

speciality stock options transactions and

the reporting of such transactions be

included in the rule. The Exchange

proposed the additions to broaden the

regulatory responses available to the

Exchange in effectively inducing

compliance with all aspects of the rules.

III. Discussion

The Commission believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange, and, in particular,

with Section 6(b)(5) which requires that

the rules of an exchange be designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to remove impediments and to

perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market

system, and, in general, to protect

investors and the public interest.3

The Exchange’s proposal is also

consistent with the requirements in

Sections 6(b)(1) 4 and 6(b)(6) 5 requiring

that the rules of an exchange enforce

compliance and provide appropriate

discipline for violations of Commission

and Exchange rules. Moreover, because

NYSE Rule 476A provides procedural

rights to the person fined and permits a

disciplined person to request a full

hearing on the matter, the proposal

provides a fair procedure for the

disciplining of members and persons

associated with members, consistent

with Sections 6(b)(7) 6 and 6(d)(1) 7 of

the Act.

The Commission believes that the

Exchange’s proposal, adding five

additional rules to those subject to the

imposition of fines under Rule 476A

reinforces the obligations of exchange

specialists. Most notably, by adding

NYSE Rule 79A.15 to the MRVP, the

Commission believes that the Exchange

is emphasizing the importance of the

obligation of an exchange specialist to

immediately display certain customer

limit orders in accordance with the

Commission’s Limit Order Display

Rule 8 and NYSE Rule 79A.15. The

Commission believes that displaying

customer limit orders benefits investors

by providing enhanced execution

opportunities and improved

transparency.9

The Commission expects that the

Exchange has the appropriate

surveillance procedures to easily

identify a specialist who fails to display

a customer limit order immediately or is

relying on an automated system that

does not display limit orders

immediately.10 The Commission,

therefore, believes that because certain

violations of the Limit Order Rule are

amenable to efficient and equitable

enforcement they are appropriate for

inclusion in NYSE Rule 476A. The

Commission expects, however, because

a violation of NYSE Rule 79A.15

amounts to a violation of a federal

securities law, that the Exchange will

err on the side of caution in disposing

of such violations under the Plan.11 The

Commission expects the Exchange to

continue to resolve more serious

violations of rules through the use of

formal disciplinary procedures, as in the

case of an egregious violation or

habitual offender.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange, and, in particular,

with Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5), 6(b)(6),

6(b)(7), 6(d)(1) and 19(d) of the Act.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 12 and Rule

19d–1(c)(2) thereunder,13 that the

proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–98–

02) be, and hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.14

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17834 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Rescission of Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling 87–2(11)

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of Social

Security acquiescence Ruling 87–

2(11)—Butterworth v. Bowen, 796 F.2d

1379 (11th Cir. 1986).

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

404.985(e), 416.1485(e) and

402.35(b)(2), the Commissioner of Social

Security gives notice of the rescission of

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling

87–2(11).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling explains

how we will apply a holding in a

decision of a United States Court of

Appeals that we determine conflicts

with our interpretation of a provision of

the Social Security Act (the Act) or

regulations when the Government has

decided not to seek further review of the

case or is unsuccessful on further

review.

As provided by 20 CFR 404.985(e)(4)

and 416.1485(e)(4), a Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling may be rescinded

as obsolete if we subsequently clarify,

modify or revoke the regulation or

ruling that was the subject of the circuit

court holding for which the

Acquiescence Ruling was issued.

On May 1, 1987, we issued

Acquiescence Ruling 87–2(11) to reflect

the holding in Butterworth v. Bowen,

796 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1986), that the

Social Security Administration’s

Appeals Council 1 is authorized to